Donald R. McClarey

Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three and happily married for 35 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.

1. If the Taliban are not terrorists the term is devoid of meaning.
2. The restrictions placed on the 5 released terrorists for one year, with subsequent “monitoring”, are farcial.
3. These negotiations with the terrorists are the start of something indeed. The beginning of Obama’s lame duck status in foreign policy with even Democrats in Congress running away from him.

what about the whole “The United States and practically every other nation that’s ever fought a war have made these sorts of exchanges for centuries. In recent years, American officers have turned over hundreds of detainees to the Afghan government” business?

After the years of this administration’s ‘handling’ of any, probably all, underpinnings of the origin (defined in the Constitution with regard to life, liberty and the pursuit) of this particular country and its countrymen, the fact of the report by Mad Magazine illustrates how outrageously conditioned the public and how outrageously successful the intent by it. It is a mad, pathological world.

Donald M McClarey wrote, “If the Taliban are not terrorists the term is devoid of meaning”

Could one not say that they were an insurgent or revolutionary movement in Afghanistan that succeeded in establishing a (rather precarious) government in that country and were recognized as such, notably by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?

Unlike the typical “terrorist organization,” in 1991, they were, or could reasonably claim to be, state actors – the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan; a not insignificant distinction.

Pat: President Taliban is the president that the 1974 VietCongress charged was Richard Nixon. Only difference: Nixon was trying to advance America, President Taliban is accomplishing the reverse. CNNMoney poll 59% of respinents say the “American Dream” is out of their reach; one-in-six males ages 25 to 54 are out of work; 11 million are out iof the labor force as disabled; [sigh] Hope and Change!

MP-S: State actors that stone to death women because they were raped; that slash the throats of 6,000 Herat tribesmen and boys; . . .

Every time I see the face of that godless man of sin and depravity, I want to scream and yell. I am sorry that I have nothing constructive to contribute other than to say that I concur with Don’s post and would go far further. This Narcissist President – the “N-President” – is a murderer of unborn babies, a sanctifier of sexual filth, a thief of the public treasury and a despoiler of the morals of the nation. That he would free cut-throat Islamic mass-murderers in exchange for a traitorous deserter is par for the course. This is what evil men do! He will one day stand before God almighty. Yes, we all will stand before that Great White Throne of Judgment and Heaven have mercy on us sinners. But two sets of people are held to higher standards than the rest of us. One set are our shepherds – Priests and Bishops. Ezekiel 34:1-10 stalks about them. The second set are our leaders – Kings, Queens, Presidents, Premiers, Governors, Senators, Congressmen, Justices, Judges, etc. Sirach 10:1-5 talks about them:

1 A wise magistrate educates his people,
and the rule of an intelligent person is well ordered.
2 As the people’s judge is, so are his officials;
as the ruler of the city is, so are all its inhabitants.
3 An undisciplined king ruins his people,
but a city becomes fit to live in through the understanding of its rulers.
4 The government of the earth is in the hand of the Lord,
and over it he will raise up the right leader for the time.
5 Human success is in the hand of the Lord,
and it is he who confers honor upon the lawgiver.

Lord have mercy on Barack Hussein Obama and his godless idolatrous wife Jezebel, for the sake of the nation before their wickedness brings upon the head of guilty and innocent alike God’s judgment.

“The United States and practically every other nation that’s ever fought a war have made these sorts of exchanges for centuries. In recent years, American officers have turned over hundreds of detainees to the Afghan government” business?”

Yep and it is always, always a mistake, a fact that Kaplan is incapable apparently of comprehending.

The last war that was officially declared by the consent of the U.S. Congress as required by the U.S Constitution was World War II.
.
Conflicts thereafter have been some variation of “police actions” usually with U.S troops acting under the leadership of the United Nations. Does this change the status of persons held in detention ie., those in Guantanamo Bay?

“The last war that was officially declared by the consent of the U.S. Congress as required by the U.S Constitution was World War II.”

Incorrect, the last war authorized by Congress was Iraq. The Constitution does not define what constitutes a declaration of war, and we have fought wars without declarations since the administration of George Washington.

POWs would be POWs under international law no matter the mechanism used to authorize the war. A good example of this would be Confederate POWs during the Civil War.

Mr. McClarey writes: “POWs would be POWs under international law no matter the mechanism used to authorize the war..”
.
Are you not concerned about a war being declared by virtue of a Presidentiial Executive Order alone?
.
I am not familiar with this subject so please pardon my errors…but the Geneva Convention, to my recollection, provides guidelines on the rights of prisoners. By holding prisoners at Guatanamo without trial, are we (the US) not in violation of the the Geneva Convention and rights accorded “prisoners of war”? We cannot just hold them indefinitely.
.
Pardon if I don’t respond back quickly…must leave for several hours. Thx.

“Are you not concerned about a war being declared by virtue of a Presidentiial Executive Order alone?”

I would be except that has happened rarely in US history. Overwhelmingly Congress has been asked to authorize the use of force before US troops are committed to a conflict, or soon thereafter. Obama violated this tradition in regard to his war in Libya. Congress of course can cut off funding for any military operation it ceases to support, which is what Congress did in Southeast Asia, leading to the conquest of South Vietnam by North Vietnam.

“We cannot just hold them indefinitely.”

As long as hostilities continue we certainly can. They of course can be tried at any time for crimes committed by them, but POWs may be held indefinitely by the capturing power so long as hostilities are ongoing.

Off topic but news I know most of you will welcome for a change: Joni Ernst has won her GOP U.S. Senate primary in Iowa with 56% of the vote, more than enough to avoid a run-off and put her in good position to take the seat of retiring Democrat Tom Harkin.

As this story from Hot Air notes, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is already attempting to paint her as “the Sarah Palin of Iowa” — evidence that they are running scared and can’t think of any other strategy:

Slainté & Donald M McCleary
The governing legislation is to be found in Articles 2-4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949. Articles 43 & 44 of the First Protocol of 10 June 1977 clarifies the status of members of guerrilla forces. The majority of Publicists regard the Commentary of the ICRC of 1960 as authoritative.
Article 3, which deals with Conflicts Not of an International Character represents new law and earlier writers must be read subject to its provisions. Otherwise, commentaries on the Tenth Hague Convention of 1907 and the Geneva Convention of 1929 remain applicable. The provisions of Articles 43 & 44 of the First Protocol embody customary International Law, but must now be read in the light of Article 3.
A vexed question and one on which there is no consensus is the status of prisoners of war on the termination of hostilities.

The Democrats have an out of touch trial lawyer Congressman running against a hog castrating, National Guard Colonel, gun shooting, motor cycle riding political phenomenon who has the intelligence and raw political skill to win a race that looked like it was going to be a coronation for the Democrat:

AGAIN Obama has violated duly passed federal law in order to accomplish his political agenda. He has violated federal law EVEN THOSE HE SIGNED INTO LAW HIMSELF LIKE OSAMACARE ( I wrote Osama on purpose since our prez is a Muslim.). He is ruling as a king/dictator literally–in doing so Osama has not only violated his oath of office repeatedly–he has also caused the greatest constitutional crises in my life time by making Congess’ constitutional authority completely irrelevant. When the Republicans retake the US Senate in November, Osama must be impeached by the US House & removed from office by the US Senate–for the purpose of maintaining our constitutional Republic!!

Don McClarey writes. “..As long as hostilities continue we certainly can..”
.
If a single one of those prisoners is innocent, our Catholic faith and our profession tells us that a grave injustice is occurring. No man should be held indefinitely without being charged and tried by a military tribunal.
.
The likelihood of a timely resolution to middle eastern hostilities (which date back to antiquity) is nil. More than 13 years have passed since we invaded Afghanistan and there is no end in sight.
.
You have often described our first president George Washington as a leader whose character was defined by integrity and fair mindedness. Washington, in my opinion, would not lock up men for what could be a lifetime without administering due process or its military equivalent. His sense of fair play continues to define what it means to be an American.
.
It is during times of war and crisis that it becomes most urgent to administer (military) due process and refuse to suspend these protections. For those prisoners found guilty, punish accordingly.

“If a single one of those prisoners is innocent, our Catholic faith and our profession tells us that a grave injustice is occurring.”

POWs have been held indefinitely since they stopped being slaughtered or enslaved. I hardly consider that an injustice. We have released more than a few of the detainees, and several of them have gone on to be involved in new acts of terrorism. If anything our policy regarding terrorist POWs is far too lenient and that is an injustice to the American people and the other target populations of the terrorists.

“The likelihood of a timely resolution to middle eastern hostilities (which date back to antiquity) is nil.”

I guess the terrorists should have thought of that prior to 9-11 and taking up arms against the US thereafter. Actions have consequences here and in the hereafter.

“Washington, in my opinion, would not lock up men for what could be a lifetime without administering due process or its military equivalent.”

British POWs were held often in pretty miserable circumstances until the end of the War. Washington also threatened to retaliate against British POWs for actions taken against American POWs:
When he learned that American prisoners of war were being mistreated by the British, he wrote to General Thomas Gage, the commander of the British forces in Boston, this letter on August 11, 1775:

Sir: I understand that the Officers engaged in the Cause of Liberty and their Country, who by the Fortune of War have fallen into your Hands, have been thrown, indiscriminately, into a common Gaol appropriated for Felons; That no Consideration has been had for those of the most respectable Rank, when languishing with Wounds, and Sickness; that some have been even amputated, in this unworthy Situation.

Let your Opinion, Sir, of the Principle which Actuates them, be what it may, they suppose they act from the noblest of all Principles, a Love of Freedom, and their Country: But political Opinions I conceive are foreign to this Point; the Obligations arising from the Rights of Humanity, and Claims of Rank are universally binding, and extensive (except in case of Retaliation): These I should have hoped, would have dictated a more tender Treatment of those Individuals, whom Chance or War had put in your Power. Nor can I forbear suggesting its fatal Tendency, to widen that unhappy Breach, which you, and those Ministers under whom you act, have repeatedly declared you wish’d to see forever closed.

My Duty now makes it necessary to apprize you, that for the future I shall regulate my Conduct towards those Gentlemen, who are or may be in our Possession, exactly by the Rule you shall observe towards those of ours, now in your Custody.

If Severity and Hardship mark the Line of your Conduct (painful as it may be to me) your Prisoners will feel its Effects: But if Kindness and Humanity are shewn to ours, I shall with Pleasure consider those in our Hands, only as unfortunate, and they shall receive from me that Treatment, to which the unfortunate are ever intitled.

I beg to be favoured with an Answer, as soon as possible, and am Sir, etc”

Gage gave a rather snippy reply on August 13:

“To the glory of civilized nations, humanity and war have been compatible; and compassion to the subdued is become a general system. Britons ever pre-eminent in mercy, have outgone common examples, and overlooked the criminal in the captive. Upon these principles your prisoners, whose lives by the law of the land are destined to the cord, have hitherto been treated with care and kindness, and more comfortably lodged than the King’s troops in the hospitals; indiscriminately it is true, for I acknowledge no rank, that is not derived from the King.

“My intelligence from your army would justify severe recrimination. I understand there are of the King’s faithful subjects, taken some time since by the rebels, laboring, like negro slaves, to gain their daily subsistence, or reduced to the wretched alternative, to perish by famine or take arms against their King and country. Those who have made the treatment of the prisoners in my hands, or of your other friends in Boston, a pretence for such measures, found barbarity upon falsehood.

“I would willingly hope, Sir, that the sentiments of liberality, which I have always believed you to possess, will be exerted to correct these misdoings. Be temperate in political disquisition; give free operation to truth, and punish those who deceive and misrepresent; and not only the effects, but the causes, of this unhappy conflict will be removed. Should those, under whose usurped authority you act, control such a disposition, and dare to call severity retaliation, to God, who knows all hearts, be the appeal for the dreadful consequences. I trust that British soldiers, asserting the rights of the state, the laws of the land, the being of the constitution, will meet all events with becoming fortitude. They will court victory with the spirit their cause inspires; and, from the same motive, will find the patience of martyrs under misfortune.

“Till I read your insinuations in regard to ministers, I conceived that I had acted under the King, whose wishes, it is true, as well as those of his ministers, and of every honest man, have been to see this unhappy breach for ever closed; but, unfortunately for both countries, those who long since projected the present crisis, and influence the councils of America, have views very distant from accommodation. I am, Sir, your most obedient humble servant.

“Thomas Gage.”

Washington ordered on August 14 that retaliatory measures be taken against the British prisoners in line with what the American prisoners were suffering. He revoked the order in a few days, probably assuming that the British now understood that he was in earnest that his conduct towards British prisoners would be in accord with their treatment of American prisoners.

If we followed Washington’s policy we would have no detainees, because all but one of them would now be executed, as the terrorists have murdered virtually every American member of the military to fall into their hands, except for the recently ransomed deserter. Washington was a fair man, he wasn’t a chump. Too many people today are unable to distinguish the two.

Of the 19 terrorists who engaged in the horrific acts of September 11, 2001,
.
15 were citizens of Saudi Arabia,
.
2 were citizens of the United Arab Emirates,
.
1 was a citizen of Egypt (Mohammad Atta),
.
1 was a citizen of Lebanon.

Osama Bin Laden, the leader of these depraved lunatics, was a native of Saudi Arabia who spent time in Ethiopia and his last days hiding in Pakistan.

Some or all of the 19 hijackers allegedly received their training in Afghanistan; Colorado Springs Co. (Doss Aviation Inc.); and an air flight school in Florida.
.
We have not invaded the countries of origin of the terrorist hijackers, except for Lebanon. Iraq who is not alleged to have any connection with the September 11 bombings was also found not to have weapons of mass destruction.
.
The source of terrorism appears to be the countries of origin of the hijackers…Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Arab Emirates, and Lebanon.
.
Why then are we still in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc.? Too confusing for me to answer.
.
A military tribunal should thus charge and remand for trial all prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. The nature of “police actions” under the United Nations is that of protracted engagements which span many, many years. (ie., Vietnam). Because of the long duration of these hostilities, it is especially important to proceed properly under American and International Law and not suspend due process rights for prisoners of war and those charged with war crimes.
.
Integrity counts.

“We have not invaded the countries of origin of the terrorist hijackers,”

We invaded and liberated Afghanistan which served as the base of operations of Al-Qaeda which worked hand in glove with the Taliban who are now awaiting Obama’s planned withdrawal from Afghanistan to seize power again. Afghanistan will once again serve as base site from which the jihadists can wage against the US and all the fighting we have waged will be repeated after the next 9-11 which I pray will not be nuclear this time. The source of the terrorism is Islam’s inability to adapt to modernity and the proliferation of terrorists promising eternal war against all things non-Islamic in order to take power in their countries.

“A military tribunal should thus charge and remand for trial all prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.”

The ongoing farce of Major Nidal Hassan who murdered American soldiers in views of dozens of eye witnesses, who admitted his guilt, and is still among the living five years later indicates what would happen in regard to such waste of time prosecutions against individuals who committed their acts of terrorism in foreign nations. The terrorists should be held instead as POWs indefinitely until the War is over. If there are any deemed to be no longer a threat, we can release them and keep count of the days in case they commit another act of terrorism like some 27% of detainees already released from Guantanamo.

“Integrity counts.”

Idiocy doesn’t and letting these terrorists ever draw a free breath again is precisely that.

slainte, the U.S. Supreme Court during the administration of John Adams upheld the congressional authorization to attack French naval forces in the Quasi War as “an imperfect declaration of war”. Consequently every congressional resolution authorizing military action has been seen constitutionally as a declaration of war, even if the word ‘declaration’ is missing from the authorization.
If it were easy for Vietnam War dissenters to get the courts to declare that war unconstitutional it would have happened. The Court decision over the Quasi War goes very far to explain why this didn’t happen.

We have not invaded the countries of origin of the terrorist hijackers, except for Lebanon.
—

1. The U.S. had some troops in Beirut for a brief period in 1958 and then for about 18 months between the summer of 1982 and the spring of 1984. We never ‘invaded’. They were placed there for policing functions with the assent of the public authorities therein.
—
2. The governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt were not implicated in anything Atta et al ever did and both countries have a history of co-operative dealings with the U.S. Why would we invade?

Afghanistan is an Islamic state which has never achieved nor will it ever accept modernity. Neither will it freely acquiesce to a cram down of liberal democracy or western culture. The Afghanis are a people long entrenched in Islamic hierarchical ways and they will revert to to that age old culture upon our departure. To assume otherwise is to refuse to acknowledge reality. Maintaining troops there will merely delay but not stop this process.
.
Recall the Soviet Union’s battle with Islamic Chechnya which was led by Osama Bin Laden whom we supported at that time. That conflict demonstrated the Chechnyan people’s unrelenting determination to resist foreign intervention and occupation. Chechnya became a thorn in the Soviet Union’s side that depleted its state revenues and contributed to its implosion. Afghanistan’s determination to maintain its Islamic identity and resist strangers is not unlike Chechnya’s.
.
No more American soldiers should be injured or lose their lives because of an ideological struggle over political hegemony that is an illusive dream.
.
We cannot and should not remain in the middle east long term. Islam will not bow to liberalism; know thy enemy.
.
As to prisoners, it is counter-intuitive to keep Islamic prisoners of war detained for decades; it makes prosecuting actions impractical as evidence and memories dissipate. Holding prisoners cannot be justified under any liberal reading of the Geneva Convention. I agree that we need an effective end strategy for these prisoners.
.
God bless the American soldiers who have freely and bravely sacrificed and given their lives to fight terrorism and the poor victims of the September 11 tragedy and their families.

“Afghanistan is an Islamic state which has never achieved nor will it ever accept modernity.”
Actually Afghanistan is a tribal “state”, with factions that have little love for each other. Modernity, including education for women, made great progress under the aegis of the United States. The Taliban are opposed to everything that does not fit their narrow view of Islam which is why, along with beheading women who had the temerity to learn to read, they engaged in such atrocities as blowing up the Buddhas of Bamiyan that had endured in Afghanistan for 1400 years prior to the murderous rise of the Taliban. As one might guess, the Taliban had a fair amount of domestic opposition which is why we toppled their regime in a matter of weeks in 2001. Prior to the Taliban Afghanistan was no threat to us and we should settle for nothing less than that.

“Recall the Soviet Union’s battle with Islamic Chechnya which was led by Osama Bin Laden”
We never supported Osama bin Laden. You are badly misinformed.

“No more American soldiers should be injured or lose their lives because of an ideological struggle over political hegemony that is an illusive dream.”

An illusive dream is that we can ignore 9-11 and go blissfully on our way. That is truly delusional.

“I agree that we need an effective end strategy for these prisoners.”

I prefer holding them indefinitely to executing them. They must not be allowed to harm America again and that should be our end strategy.

Art Deco,
.
I would submit that an optimal solution to 911 would have included using our superior intelligence capabilities to track down those responsible for terrorist acts and removing them with surgical precision wherever they may be.
.
The Special Forces and the Rangers are specially trained for these sort of protocols.

“The Special Forces and the Rangers are specially trained for these sort of protocols.”

Considering that we were unable to get bin Laden until almost a decade after 9-11 I’d say that strategy would have been a poor one. All that time, of course, under your scenario, he would have had the resources of Afghanistan at his disposal courtesy of his hosts the Taliban.

Mr. McClarey,
.
We should have avenged 911 immediately by taking out Bin Laden.
.
On the second issue you raise…Fundamental transformation of a people requires an internal change of hearts and minds that cannot be accomplished through a military intervention or a top down cram-down strategy.
.
Recall the historically ineffective efforts of England to annihilate all things Catholic in Ireland. Oliver Cromwell’s military intervention and that of King William of Orange served to unite Irish Catholics against a common foreign enemy and caused them to embrace Catholicism with great vigor.
.
Intervention from outside one’s culture forges alliances between internal groups who otherwise would not be united. The transformation to upgrade the status of women in Islam must be from the ground up, from within the psyche of Islamic men and women. Guns and bullets will not effect the beneficial changes you rightly demand for women and minorities.

We tried and were unable to with the full force of the US military unleashed. Police operations, which is what you suggested using our special forces, would have been much less effective.

“Fundamental transformation of a people requires an internal change of hearts and minds that cannot be accomplished through a military intervention or a top down cram-down strategy.”

Tell that to the Romans.

“Intervention from outside one’s culture forges alliances between internal groups who otherwise would not be united.”

Depends. The Arabs conquered and assimilated an empire out of disparate peoples that has stood, with the exception of a few peripheral regions like Andalusia and Sicily, from the seventh to the twenty-first centuries. The neo-Pacifism fashionable in the West, and the Church, since World War II has little historical evidence to support it.

Ehhh….If a prisoner at GITMO admitted they were members of the Taliban, then yes, they are POWS and we are at war till they surrender or a peace is made (Im not saying one should be, but you get the idea). Someone admits they are part of another terror cell, then yes, since we are at war with that cell till its destroyed, they are POWS. But then are those who claim innocence.

My understanding is that part of how we got GITMO prisoners included bounties, so people had monetary reasons to turn in the innocent. I have no doubt that there are at least a few innocents in GITMO. I get that not even everywhere in the West practices Trail by Jury, but however you define it, all non-POWS get the right to a fair trial by virtue of being human beings. How you define one for the GITMO guys? I defer to the US Supreme Court (Im glad about their rulings in Hamdan and Hamdi), plus im curious about what experiments one could conduct in alternative “fair by not by jury” trails. But I would honestly prefer Skype jjury trails…given them a US trail with defense attorney, 12 member jury drawn from the United States, etc…But with the twist that the jury sits in a room on US soil where they can see the trail going on in GITMO. How do you deal with protecting witnesses? Im sure a workable system can be, well worked out.

As far as the danger that a jury could let a bad guy go? That risk is always there in the trails we have. Plus…If giving them a jury trail was going to get me killed, I would honestly accept death happily and with patriotic pride. For those who accuse me of being callous, well, the precedent of standing on moral principle no matter the cost (even on matters not related to faith per se) has precedent in Catholic dogma…see our instance on no abortion, even if the result is letting a woman die.

Yes, and the vast majority of the detainees have been released, with 27% of those being released subsequently demonstrating that their release was a mistake on our part.

“all non-POWS get the right to a fair trial by virtue of being human beings.”

Actually what constitutes current Western notions of what constitutes a fair trial is unknown in most of the world and is a fairly recent development in the West. POWs have never been accorded trials except when court martialed for specific criminal offenses separate from their POW status.

“As far as the danger that a jury could let a bad guy go? That risk is always there in the trails we have.”

I rather assume if the terrorists were stupid enough to request a jury trial with Americans constituting the jury they would be routinely convicted. My concern would be rather what would happen as a result of the endless appeal process. Trials and War tend not to have a good track record. Of course I object to civilian trials trespassing on purely military matters. Until such time as charges are brought against individual detainees there is no reason for any type of trial, civil or military, since the detainees are being held as POWs rather than as criminals awaiting trial.

“If giving them a jury trail was going to get me killed, I would honestly accept death happily and with patriotic pride.”

Good of you. I am rather more concerned about other people who might die if some of these individuals are released while the War is ongoing.

“What is your response to my point about abortion?”
That it is a non-sequitur. Abortion is intrinsically evil and has been condemned by the Church since the Crucifixion. Not so holding POWs until the termination of hostilities.

“Maybe, but that does not change the fact that it is right.”

Amazing that most of humanity has lacked that insight for almost all of history. I have done hundreds of trials over the past 32 years and in our system they are a useful device to restrain the power of the State and to allow people to resolve disputes without resorting to violence. However, I am enough of a historian to realize that the trials I have taken part in are something peoples of other times and places might well have often regarded as expensive, frequently pettifogging, slow and not very good methods to arrive at truth.

“So they end up being held at GITMO while the appeals process goes on.”

Not necessarily. It is not unheard of for Defendants to be ordered released pending a new trial.

Regarding being released pending appeal….given security concerns and the unique situation…I would say there is no problem with keeping them in GITMO.

I admit I am not sure what your main point is regarding most of humanity not using trail by jury. As I have said, I get that you can have a fair trail different ways, but my own personal preference is the jury trail (I admitted as such) We all have the right to a fair trail, and given that these men are being held by the USA…it feels appropriate to use the American system.

My point with the abortion thing was to respond to your concern about the damage terrorists could do. Yes, we take risks that affect others on principle. Do you ultimately deny that the Church’s position is that, when the chips are down and the situations is such that all other options have been used up, we do say, in effect, let her die?

Whatever you do in your real life JSP I can only assume it has little to nothing to do with courts.

“I admit I am not sure what your main point is regarding most of humanity not using trail by jury.”

You were claiming it as a human right and I was responding that it is a peculiar right not recognized by most of humanity and a fairly recent development in the West. Our byzantine rules of procedure and evidence would have struck most people throughout most of history as being fairly absurd.

“that these men are being held by the USA…it feels appropriate to use the American system.”
Then since these men are POWs they should be held until the end of hostilities since that has usually been a part of the American system when it comes to war.

“My point with the abortion thing was to respond to your concern about the damage terrorists could do.”

Yes, and my response was that comparing abortion to holding terrorists indefinitely as POWs is comparing apples to rock salt.

While that is true….since we are in unprecedented territory with the GITMO individuals, could not one argue that in this circumstance, we could establish it as a rule that they will stay there?

I was claiming a fair trial is a human right.

In terms of POWS…what I would argues changes is when they claim innocence. When someone is captured in war, its usually easy to tell they are enemy soldiers, so there is no doubt about their status. Not always true with people in GITMO.

One more thing about abortion comparison…do you deny that my point is true and we do ultimately condemn women to death over it? In all of the great debates over this issue, I have never heard anyone answer directly the question of “would you let women die?”

slainte, you wrote “Recall the Soviet Union’s battle with Islamic Chechnya which was led by Osama Bin Laden whom we supported at that time. That conflict demonstrated the Chechnyan people’s unrelenting determination to resist foreign intervention and occupation. Chechnya became a thorn in the Soviet Union’s side that depleted its state revenues and contributed to its implosion.”
–
This is factually incorrect on many counts:
–
The fighting in Chechnya began in December 1994, a full four years after the dissolution of the USSR.
–
Chechnya was always a thorn in the side of the USSR, and as such was a fairly minor irritant to Moscow. Recall that Moscow had no trouble shipping a half million Chechens to Siberia in 1944.
–
Estimates of Chechen manpower in the First Chechen War (1994=1996) total 315,000 of which only 5,000 were foreign fighters. Osama bin Laden not only didn’t do any leading, he and al-Qaeda had almost no influence on events in Chechnya outside of the issuance of propaganda.

J.S.Person1, you are really confused.
–
POWs are considered innocents under international law unless they have been charged with a war crime. A POW is not ipso fact a criminal. Warfighting by itself is not a crime.
–
Civilians may be held as POWs, even if they are not combatants. Nothing in international law says that they must be shown to be combatants. They may be held even though they are ‘innocent’ in your use of the word if the belligerent power deems their holding to be necessary. Innocence is immaterial, the violation of which is another evil of war.
–
One war crime is for a combatant – military or civilian – to be an unlawful combatant. We all know that al-Qaeda and some Taliban fall into this category. International law requires a tribunal hearing to determine the unlawful status of a POW. This is one place where the G.W. Bush administration can be faulted: such tribunals were never established due to bureaucratic dithering and due to the fact that al-Qaeda personnel can be prejudged (yes, the word prejudicial applies) to fit this category. The Taliban are a different case: unless they were shown to be complicit in a war crime, including the sheltering of al-Qaeda, then they should have been classed as legal combatants.

J.S.Person1:
Nearly all of the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings on the Gitmo prisoners can be challenged. In Hamadi the Court merely substituted it’s own criteria to hold the prisoner instead of that used by the Bush administration. Justice Scalia’s dissent was right on the money: unless Congress suspended habeas corpus Hamadi should have been freed.
–
The Boumediene decision was the worst of all. The Court ruled that civilian rules on the use of evidence in a military tribunal against the enemy must be followed, which in turn means that civilian rules on the gathering and preservation of evidence must be applied to the battlefield. This is not only militarily foolish, but it is a flagrant intrusion on the president’s constitutional power to conduct war. The Justices crossed a constitutional boundary in this case: they determined that they have a supreme power over the president in the use and disposition of military forces on the battleground. This is obviously unconstitutional and if our times were truly desperate (thankfully they are not) this decision should have resulted in the majority Justices’ impeachment and removal from office.

Its not inappropriate. The WHOLE point of the Supreme Court is to determine when Congress and/or the President and/or the States cant do something. I know some founding fathers had different ideas, but I consider it ABOSUTLY necessary to have a Court with the power to reign us in. We don’t like something they say? Unless they literally are physically or mentally incapacitated, a constitutional amendment should be the only real way to stop them.

One underlying syllogism on this runs like this:
A) The United States has captured Islamic militants and must hold them as POWs
B) International law allows the holding of a POW until the end of a conflict
C) Islamic beliefs hold that conflict with infidels will end only with
conversion, death, or subjugation (though the last is debatable)
D) It is wrong to hold a POW for the end of a conflict which will never happen
E) Therefore, we need to find a way to release these POWs before the conflict’s end
–
How to find such a way?
1) Deny the truth of C
2) Deny that the threat is global (al-Qaeda in Iraq is not al-Qaeda in Somalia, etc.)
But of course, never, ever allow anyone to deny the truth of D
–
People are in such denial as to the ruthlessness of our enemies and as to the level of ruthlessness that will likely be required of us to survive. Since 9/11/2001 failed to fully awaken people, we will likely have to await a nuclear attack before we fully wise up.

J.S.Person1: The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Branch of the government, and I’d like to know of even ONE Founder who thought otherwise. They thought that the Court would be Supreme in the protection of American liberties, and nothing more.
If the U.S. were under attack, and millions of Americans were dying because a majority of Justices were preventing an appropriate measure for ideological reasons, then there would be no time to amend the constitution. Impeach them and replace them with more realistic men and women. Arguably in such an extreme situation their mental competence would be subject to questioning, so your exception might very well apply.

Why should we trust the Justices in SCOTUS to dispense justice when they betray the name of justice by unjustly voting in favor of the infanticide of the unborn? They persevere in injustice from the Dred Scott decision of yester-century to the present day.

TomD wrote “Civilians may be held as POWs, even if they are not combatants”

No, they may not. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949, civilians may, in certain circumstances, be interned (Arts 41, 42) However, “Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.” (Art 49) This is an absolute, unqualified prohibition, breach of which constitutes a Crime against Humanity.

MPS, internment is exactly what I was thinking about. I looked up articles 41 and 42, they appear to be concerned with POW discipline, including the limits of lethal force. Were you thinking rather of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? That covers the area you describe, but it only has 30 articles in the original.

MPS, Also, Article 49 states: “The Detaining Power may utilize the labour of prisoners of war who are physically fit, taking into account their age, sex, rank and physical aptitude, and with a view particularly to maintaining them in a good state of physical and mental health.
“Non-commissioned officers who are prisoners of war shall only be required to do supervisory work. Those not so required may ask for other suitable work which shall, so far as possible, be found for them.
“If officers or persons of equivalent status ask for suitable work, it shall be found for them, so far as possible, but they may in no circumstances be compelled to work.”
Could you be quoting a convention other than the 4th Geneva?

Don McClarey and TomD,
.
Thank you for your corrections regarding Chechnya. The Chechen rebels are an Islamic group who have militated against Russian and then Soviet occupation since the 1700’s; their more recent acts against Soviet occupation were reported in 1994, post Soviet Union implosion, and continue unabated.
.
In a July 8, 2005 article in “the guardian” entitled “The struggle against terrorism cannot be won by military means”, former UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Robin Cook (1997-2001) was quoted as stating:
.
“…Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally “the database”, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden’s organisation would turn its attention to the west. The danger now is that the west’s current response to the terrorist threat compounds that original error. So long as the struggle against terrorism is conceived as a war that can be won by military means, it is doomed to fail…”
.
Source: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development

slainte, Robin Cook is another blithering idiot
–
1) al-Qaeda is simply “the Base”. It was not founded as a database of prospective hires, as a kind of human resources department. What a joke! No, the organizational purpose of “the Base” is much the same as Cosa Nostra “Our Thing” is for Sicilian organized crime: it is an umbrella organization meant to facilitate and encourage alliances across Islamic militant organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Abu Sayyaf, al-Shabab, Jemaah Islamiah, etc etc etc. It is the base upon which all the others can build upon in joint efforts for jihad.
–
2) The history of how Bin Laden rose with CIA support is immaterial to our actions against him. Your statement is a non sequitur unless you can point to someone who is today receiving U.S. (or other western government support) and is likely to turn against us in the future and say “There is the future Bin Laden”. And truthfully, we can point to such organizations: the Islamic Front, the Free Syrian Army, Al-Nisra Front, the Syrian Revolutionaries Front, the Army of Mujahedeen, Harakat Hazm, and Sham Legion all directly or indirectly receive western and American aid and are likely to turn on us after the Syrian civil war is over.
–
3) “So long as the struggle against terrorism is conceived as a war that can be won by military means, it is doomed to fail” This is so obviously untrue in so many ways. There is only one way it is true: if the answer is really the conversion of the Islamists to Christianity. Don’t laugh: underground Christian activity in Iran is flourishing, and if successful there certainly can be repeated elsewhere. Outside of that outcome the war will continue, and if the west follows the counsel of Mr. Cook it will lose.

Robin Cook resigned from the Blair government in 2003 in protest over the Iraq War. He wrote the Guardian piece that was quoted four weeks before his death. His allegations were completely unsubstantiated, and his history was as poor as apparently his understanding of Arabic:

TomD,
.
My statement about Bin Laden was in response to Don McClarey’s earlier position that “…We never supported Osama bin Laden. You are badly misinformed…”. It must be noted that Mr. McClarey was responding to my mis-statement about Chechnya and US support of Bin Laden; in that regard, he appears to be correct.
.
You are entitled to your opinion about British foreign minister Cook’s status as an alleged “idiot”. As a British foreign minister from 1997-2001, he occupied a high level position within the UK at the time of the 911 attacks and presumably would have had access to information about Bin Laden’s general history as a terrorist including his connection with Afghani defensive efforts against the Soviet Union. This is especially true as the UK was on high alert for Islamic terror attacks following 911.
.
TomD writes, “…if the answer is really the conversion of the Islamists to Christianity. Don’t laugh….”
.
I’m not laughing at all. Pope Francis and previous popes have got the strategy right while political policy analysts have erred…A conversion of hearts and minds by a people freely choosing to accept and embrace a faith or belief system creates a unity among these peoples that cannot be accomplished or broken by a standing or invading army.
.
Truth, Beauty, and Goodness is the key to converting hearts and minds, not military interventions or punitive measures such as sanctions.
.
It’s important, even if its seems counter-intuitive, to treat those men who are detained as prisoners of war in Guantanamo Bay, with the dignity and respect due all men who bear within their souls the Divine imprint. Functionally, I think one way we accomplish this is through military trials conducted with integrity.
.
Kindness and respect goes a long way to diffusing anger and hatred. Something for our foreign policy analysts to consider.

Again, Robin Cook having “had access to information about Bin Laden’s general history as a terrorist including his connection with Afghani defensive efforts against the Soviet Union” is a non sequitur. If you create a monster and later have to kill it then your original creation of it is in no way open to any criticism but one: was the creation of the monster really necessary? So, was the end of Soviet adventurism necessary? Yes, obviously, it was. The great moral failure was not the creation of Bin Laden but rather the failure to correctly deal with al-Qaeda after the 1997 east African embassy bombings, when it became obvious that we had indeed created a monster. What is the alternative? “Oh my, we created a monsters, we are so bad that we can’t trust ourselves to respond to the monster in any meaningful way”?
=
“Kindness and respect goes a long way to diffusing anger and hatred. Something for our foreign policy analysts to consider.” Sorry, no. George Washington put it best: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” That is why small government is best in matters both foreign and domestic. We know that kindness and respect is important, which is why we respect so many of our NGOs, especially those in the Church. But war is war, and unfortunately government expands out of necessity at such times, and so foreign policy analysts at such times will (and should) put Predators ahead of kindness and respect. There is no other way, unless you can with respect convince a people to abandon a holy book that reveres war.

Don McClarey writes: “….Robin Cook resigned from the Blair government in 2003 in protest over the Iraq War…”
.
To my knowledge Iraq was not implicated in the 911 attacks and at the time the UN debate occurred relative to the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction, UN inspectors continued to report that they were unable to locate such weapons. It was these facts that gave pause to many nations to refrain from joining a military intervention against Iraq. When the intervention eventually occurred, no weapons of mass destruction were found. The intervening forces did not withdraw.
.
“…Robin Cook, the leader of the Commons and a former foreign secretary, today resigned from the government in protest over the prime minister’s stance on Iraq.
Following a weekend of fervent speculation – and silence from Mr Cook himself – the minister left Downing Street before the start of today’s emergency cabinet.

Mr Cook said in a statement: “It is 20 years ago that I first joined Labour’s shadow cabinet. It is with regret I have today resigned from its cabinet. I can’t accept collective responsibility for the decision to commit Britain now to military action in Iraq without international agreement or domestic support.”
.
In his letter of resignation, Mr Cook made clear that he had raised his worries over a US/UK attack over some time with the prime minister – although absolved Mr Blair from blame for the failure of the UN to secure a second resolution…”.
.
“…..A PPS to Margaret Beckett, Andy Reed, has already quit over Iraq, and Mr Blair has survived a rebellion by 122 Labour backbenchers, all of whom voted for a motion saying the case for war on Iraq was “not proven”.
.
Although the Conservative frontbench has pledged its support for the prime minister’s position of allying Britain to a US-led attack on Iraq, several high-profile backbench Tories have come out against military action, including former chancellor Kenneth Clarke….”
.
Source:

TomD writes…:…Yes, obviously, it was. The great moral failure was not the creation of Bin Laden but rather the failure to correctly deal with al-Qaeda after the 1997 east African embassy bombings, when it became obvious that we had indeed created a monster…”
.
The great moral failure was the Soviet Union’s failure and refusal to recognize that its military presence in another sovereign nation (ie, Afghanistan) was not welcome.
.
Catholicism informs our conduct in every station of our lives including how we conduct war. I did not, nor would I suggest that terrorists be freed without first being subject to a trial by a military tribunal, and then only if exonerated. If found guilty of criminal offenses against the state, then punish accordingly, including death depending on the nature of the offense.
.
Nothing is accomplished by demonstrating abject disrespect for others. Due process requires that we search for the truth to determine a detained person’s culpability for crimes. These protections should not be suspended or disregarded in time of war or crisis.

Don McClarey writes: “…It certainly did wonders against Hitler didn’t it?..”
.
There can never be a justification for the sheer evil that Hitler represented. The allies engagement and destruction of everything this monster represented was entirely justified and appropriate.
.
I would suggest that the Marshall Plan in the post WWII years took into consideration the deficiencies of the Treaty of Versailles that may have contributed to a demoralized German nation embracing the false promises of a psychopath.
.
A vanquished people should not be utterly humiliated and degraded; the Marshall Plan restored dignity to a destroyed continent and as a consequence, the US won the respect and allegiance of a grateful Europe. The Marshall Plan exemplifies kindness and respect.

“The great moral failure was the Soviet Union’s failure and refusal to recognize that its military presence in another sovereign nation (ie, Afghanistan) was not welcome.”
Very good. Sorry, I was assuming that our discussion was limited to American root causes for al-Qaeda.
Ultimately we can say it all goes back to Sarajevo in 1914. Twenty-two more days to that evil act’s centennial. And even further back, to the rise of the evil irreligious political movements in Europe that so dominated the 20th century.

Citing Robin Cook is foolish. He gave no support for his contention that bin Laden was funded by the CIA because there is no evidence to support the contention. Cook was merely repeating the Leftist talking points of the day.

slainte, the obvious truth about the Marshall Plan is that total victory was a pre-requisite to it’s success. The occupation ended the ‘stabbed in the back’ fantasy once and for all, and the Marshall Plan and all other such acts of kindness and respect would have failed without that pre-requisite.

TomD writes: “…Ultimately we can say it all goes back to Sarajevo in 1914. Twenty-two more days to that evil act’s centennial. And even further back, to the rise of the evil irreligious political movements in Europe that so dominated the 20th century…”
.
Let’s go back even further in time…
.
Luke 6:31 Do unto others as you would have them do to you.
.
We are Catholics and our faith teaches Truth.

So Don, there is no evidence that Bin Laden was supported by the CIA? It’s obvious that I don’t care one way or the other, but it’s good to know the truth.
–
I get so ticked off about the Iraqi WMD issue. As you point out, there were over a dozen reasons for the intervention. It just happened that WMD was one that caught the public’s interest, especially after the gassing of the Kurdish villages in the late 1980s. That event made us 100% sure that the Iraqi government had WMD, and they failed to prove otherwise prior to the invasion. The later backlash was all partisan posturing.

TomD writes: “…the obvious truth about the Marshall Plan is that total victory was a pre-requisite to it’s success…”
.
We cannot know what the proximate cause of WWII was but we should rightly reflect upon whether some of the lives of our brave soldiers might have been spared, or the war avoided entirely, if there had been greater thought and reflection in the crafting of the Versailles Treaty and its foreseeable consequences.
.
Underlying every act we visit upon another we should be aware of Jesus’ words,
.
“…Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me…” Matthew 25:40
.
I recognize there is evil in this world; that it must be repelled; sometimes very aggressively; and that some of its proponents may be in detention at GITMO. Notwithstanding, when we are forced to engage war or deal with captured combatants, as Catholics we should hope that our leadership makes every effort to engage the virtue of magnanimity in its treatment of prisoners of war. As children of Christ, we are called to do no else.

Don McClarey references Congress’ “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002” (“Congress’ Resolution”) to justify the use of military force by the U.S against Iraq.
.
Congress’ Resolution to enforce Iraq’s alleged non-compliance with UN security resolutions is preempted by the United Nations Charter, Chapter IV, Article 14, and Chapter VII, Articles 41 and 42 which collectively and expressly reserve for the UN Security Council, alone, enforcement of UN resolutions as against non complying nations. As the UN Security Council did not authorize military action against Iraq and its Resolution 1441 affirmed that it alone remained “seized of the matter” (thus excluding action by individual member nations), Congress’ Resolution appears to have been rendered academic by reason of preemption.
.
The operative provision of Congress’ Resolution purporting to authorize a member state of the United Nations, (the United States), to enforce a UN security resolution, is as follows:
.
“….SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
.
(a) Authorization.–The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to–
.
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
.
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq…”http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm
.
Chapter IV, Article 14, and Chapter VII, Articles 41 and 42 of the U.N Charter authorize the U.N. Security Council, alone, to enforce its security resolutions against non complying nations. An individual member state, acting on its own initiative, has no authority under the UN Charter to enforce UN security resolutions.
.
Source: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter4.shtml
Source: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml
.
On November 8, 2002, the United Nations Security Council issued Resolution 1441 (2002) acknowledging certain material breaches of multiple security resolutions by Iraq, while deciding “to remain seized of the matter” (p. 14), thus retaining to itself, and declining to cede to any individual member nation, the exclusive right to authorize military force for non-compliance of its resolutions.
.
Source: http://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/new/documents/resolutions/s-res-1441.pdf
.
On March 19, 2003, without any apparent authorization by the UN, military intervention was initiated against Iraq under the banner Operation Iraqi Freedom.
.
“In October 2004…..”The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, …. issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there.”
.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

Mr. McClarey writes: “…“Saddam likely moved his chemical wmds to Syria.
.
Accusations and speculation coupled with actual possession of weapons of mass destruction constitute good evidence that SYRIA was in violation of UN security regulations.

TomD wrote, “MPS, internment is exactly what I was thinking about. I looked up articles 41 and 42, they appear to be concerned with POW discipline, including the limits of lethal force”

You are looking at the Third Geneva Convention, which deals with POWs, not the Fourth, which deals with civilian populationshttp://cil.nus.edu.sg/1949/1949-geneva-convention-iv-relative-to-the-protection-of-civilian-persons-in-time-of-war/
Article 42
The internment or placing in assigned residence of protected persons may be ordered only if the security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely necessary.
If any person, acting through the representatives of the Protecting Power, voluntarily demands internment, and if his situation renders this step necessary, he shall be interned by the Power in whose hands he may be.

Article 49
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons does demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

The proximate cause was the failure of the Versailles and Lausanne Treaties to deal effectively with the situation created by WWI, of which it was the continuation.

Everyone had wanted war in 1914

1. Ever since the Congress of Berlin in 1878, Austria and Germany had been determined to prevent Russian expansion in the Balkans. Austria knew that, if she allowed herself to be humiliated by Serbia, she could not keep control of her minorities.
2. Germany saw war with Russia as inevitable and wanted it before Russia completed her rail network and gained the ability to mobilise her vast reserves quickly.
3. With her prestige already damaged by her defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, Russia knew if she allowed her ally, Serbia, to be humiliated, she could well face revolt in her Western provinces, particularly Poland and the Baltic states, from which the bulk of her tax revenue was derived.
4. With her stagnant birth-rate and Germany’s growing one, France knew she could not wait another generation, if she were ever to recover the lost provinces of Alsace and Lorraine and avenge the defeat of 1870.
5. Italy wanted to incorporate Austria’s Italian provinces (Italia Irredenta).
6. Tirpitz’s naval expansion and the consequent arms race with Germany was ruinously expensive for Britain.

Both my husband and I have been to Gitmo under temporary duty orders. The terrorists that are confined there have a much better standard of living than what they are used to in their native country.
Many Afghanis are outraged that the US has released the five Sunni Taliban detainees, who according to the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission are responsible for the executions of thousands of Afghani Shiites. They are considered war criminals by their own countrymen.
As for WMD in Iraq, there was strong evidence that they were taken to Syria through the then porous western border of Iraq. Before Iraq invaded Kuwait in the early 90s there was open source evidence that Iraq planned to build or was building the world’s largest gun (the mother of all guns) designed to deliver chemical and nuclear weapons. The parts for the barrel were to be imported from Europe under the guise of components for highway tunnels in the mountains of Irag. The American public and the media seem to forget about the invasion of Kuwait and the atrocities committed against the Kuwaitis by the Iraqis.
MAD has it spot on with Alfred E. Newman surrounded by the 5 butchers. Every pronoucement by his Administration on the trade for the release of the alleged deserter Bergdahl is a bigger lie than the last. Dangerous amateurs who are weakening our country domestically and internationaly.

slainte, there is still trouble with your chronology
–
1) One major problem is that you assume there was no war between the 1991 and 2003 invasions of Iraq. This is not true. The enforcement of the UN no-fly zones by the U.S. and others were acts of war. Hostilities never really ended, and we lie to ourselves when we pretend otherwise – just as we do when we pretend that the Korean War ended in 1953. Wars only end when the people who wanted war change their minds, or else have them changed for them by their enemies.
–
2) The other issue is your citing of “In October 2004…..”The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, …. issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there.” This report is useless because it came long after the invasion, and used information only available after the invasion allowed for it’s collection. It is an example of the greatest logical failing of the entire war debate: the belief that perfect information was available for decision making. Do nothing until you know everything. During D-Day many examples of imperfect knowledge became apparent, and if the same reasoning used by Iraq War critics were to be applied then D-Day also should never have happened. I see this reasoning all the time with 9/11 – “Why couldn’t the Air Force find those planes? – and conclude it is the result of generations watching Mission: Impossible type shows where very little evidence is hidden from the audience. Well, real life isn’t a TV show, and I thank God that TV programming didn’t take off in the 1920’s because this mentality could have led to a different outcome in WW2 or the early Cold War.

Tom, good points.
Mission impossible, NCIS, CSI and the like are very entertaining and are often based on real domestic cases, but the technology used often is scifi.
Another point is the judgement call for our intelligence on whether to reveal facts or situations that would provide the enemy with the source. In other words the intelligence revealed may not be as important as keeping the source safe and operating whether it’s from humans or signals, etc. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda are not unsophisticated organizations.